engaged in a debate with a philosopher about why ice floats on water. While his primary arguments were correct, he went too far, belittling legitimate, contradictory evidence given by his opponent, Ludovico delle Colombe.

_________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

He wasn't completely right about celestial matters either, he didn't believe in Kepler's parabolic (elliptical) orbits, or Kepler's tidal theory of the moon being responsible for creating tidal bulges in the sea, to name two.. He mainly just took a hard stand against the Church on heliocentrism, and this at a time when the Church was still conducting inquisitions and burning people for witchcraft and heresy. Pretty ballsy. Without his strong family name and political clout (the pope was a friend), he surely would have been burnt._________________

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.

neither was Einstein or bruno (who the church executed), but both of them were 100% more right than the church_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

It's important to remember that Gallileo wasn't wrong because some narcissistic, lying mofo got paid to write a blog on the internet. He was wrong for scientific reasons. The process of science puts evidence and rational argument above individuals no matter who they are.

Trying to argue that because someone was wrong about something once hundreds of years ago we can therefore reject any modern science which we don't like is f*ng retarded. You still have to make a valid scientific argument to support whatever bullshit you want to believe in. Let's hear it. Put up or shut up.

It's important to remember that Gallileo wasn't wrong because some narcissistic, lying mofo got paid to write a blog on the internet. He was wrong for scientific reasons. The process of science puts evidence and rational argument above individuals no matter who they are.

Trying to argue that because someone was wrong about something once hundreds of years ago we can therefore reject any modern science which we don't like is f*ng retarded. You still have to make a valid scientific argument to support whatever bullshit you want to believe in. Let's hear it. Put up or shut up.

There's nothing anti-science or at all misleading about the thread, the OP, the linked article, or the original article. Your post is a strawman, attacking what genuinely appears to be a paranoid delusion.

Point out the part of the article, the Slashdot commentary, or pjp's post that led you to include the text in red as part of your one-line summary.

That's right; it's not there. You are pulling an Al Gore, and blurting out hyperbole and exaggerations so far afield from the reality of the situation that they are essentially the opposite of the truth.

This article was a celebration of the scientific process -- a historical vignette regarding scientific debate among humans. pjp pointing out in his thread title that even scientific heroes can be wrong in no way suggests that they always or generally are, and nobody even mentioned climate science. That paranoid delusion you conjured up on your own. You should seek counseling.

Absolutely. That was the whole reason I posted the article in the first place. You look for conspiracies which do not exist._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

I like the earth going around the sun NOT the other way around OR at the centre of the universe_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king